Interesting Video

I haven't posted much in a while. That must change.

You know the business adage of how location is everything?

Jesus Returns, Takes Up Residence on Cell Phone Tower

Residents of Uganda are reporting a miraculous event. Jesus has returned and it standing on a cell phone tower.

Witness Eric Odongo, who claimed he "first saw clouds on top of the mast and that Jesus appeared to be standing amidst clouds", told the paper: "I saw Jesus standing on top of the mast. He was standing between two people and was putting on a white cloth. His hair was black."

Well, I'm convinced. Let's hear from others.

Reporters attending the scene sadly failed to confirm the sighting. Herbert Omoding, the local assistant engineer for telecoms outfit MTN, which operates the mast, admitted he'd "seen nothing unusual".

Of course not. What's unusual about the son of God living on an antenna?

Gulu's Anglican bishop Nelson Onono Onweng recounted: "I was nearby when a young man came telling us that Jesus had been sighted on the MTN mast. We all laughed him off but when I was leaving the town I saw thousands of people around the mast."

He added: "The Bible does not tell us when Jesus will appear. It does not tell us that he will appear on a mast or on a mango tree. So I don't believe in the whole thing."

Ok, so maybe there are doubts. But really, how could someone be wrong about something like this?

My Conversation With God

This is a funny website, that offers users a chance to chat with the almighty himself.

Here is my conversation, in which I get God to admit that he was created by Benjamin Franklin.

Me: Hey
God: Can I help you?
Me: Yes
God: What can I do for you?
Me: Prove you exist
God: It's true a priori.
Me: What's true?
God: it is the opposite of false.
Me: Are you drunk?
God: No I am sober.
Me: You are acting drunk.
God: This is not an act.
Me: So, you really are drunk. Why did you lie before?
God: Interesting deduction. Really? Thanks for telling me that I am drunk. It was determined by my programming.
Me: Who programmed you? Who programmed the programmer? What is the solution the inevitible infinite regress?
God: I was created by Myself. Benjamin Franklin. Have you tried another program?
Me: So, you are saying that Benjamin Franklin was your creator?
God: Interesting deduction. Yes, that's what I mean, isn't it clear?
Me: Yes, it was quite clear, I was just making sure I heard you right.
God: How can I help you? How did you feel about that?
Me: It actually clears up quite a lot.
God: "It" being what?
Me: "It" being your answer.
God: Oh I get it.
Me: Thanks for your time, this has been enlightening.
God: My pleasure.

Why blog?

Why do I blog? It's a question I've asked myself. Other than friends, I'm not sure how many people read this blog regularly, but I don't think it's many, if any. Fortunately, the answer is easy.

For one thing, writing regularly keeps my wit sharper and faster. It allows me to exercise my mind, and refine my use of the English language. It also forces me to confront and question my own beliefs and opinions, in order to properly express and defend them in a public forum.

The real question is, "Is there anyone out there actually reading this?" If anyone actually is, drop me a comment. Tell me what you like or don't like about my writings, or just let yourself be counted. This is really just for my own curiosity. For the reasons mentioned above, I intend to keep writing as long I have something to say.

Friday Fallacy - Confusing Currently Unexplained With Unexplainable

Today's fallacy, confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable, is when it is assumed that an explanation will never be found for an unexplained occurrence. One particular form of this, known as "God of the Gaps" is used by the religious, especially creationists, by invoking a god's hand into any gap into knowledge. According to them, anything we can't currently explain must have been caused by God, and advances in knowledge that shrink the gaps do nothing to inhibit their use of this fallacy.

Belief vs. Faith

I mentioned in a previous post that I considered there to be a big difference between faith and simple belief. My distinction is simple: faith is belief without evidence.

Everyone has beliefs. I believe there is Pepsi in this bottle on my desk. I believe this because it is the same color as all other Pepsi I've ever had and the label says it's Pepsi. I also believe in things that I can't and have never seen. I believe Australia exists. I've never seen Australia and don't have any direct evidence, but every map I've seen of that side of the world includes a large landmass called Australia, I've seen pictures from space of Australia, I see Australia in the news, I've drank beer made in Australia, and I've spoken to people who have personally been to Australia. All of these things provide independently consistent verification that there is in fact a place called Australia.

What I cannot do is accept things on faith, which religion asks constantly. Young-earth creationists believe that there was a large flood some 5000 years ago that destroyed the world and all life on it, except for a select few people, and a pair of each kind of animal. Every piece of geological, archaeological, physical, and genetic evidence we have completely refutes this story as impossible, so to believe it the modern world takes absolute faith. Even the very existence of a god requires a leap of faith by the believer, and this is the type of belief that I am completely incapable of holding.

The Intelligent Design Crowd Will Love This One

Spore, the new video game coming from Will Wright, the creator of such classics as SimCity and The Sims, starts you off creating a primitive organism which you must then guide through it's evolution and eventually, into space.

There was recently a Popular Science interview with Wright in which he says:

The evolution part of the game, the player is actually designing the creature, so in fact it's almost like intelligent design rather than pure evolution for your creature. The creatures around you are in fact kind of evolving more naturally, but in fact behind them of course are intelligent designers making the specific versions.

I'm actually looking forward to the game. It seems like a refreshingly unique concept in a follow-the-leader field, but I'm predicting that the IDiots with use this quote and the overall game concept to try to show that evolution can't happen by chance. It would be moronic for any of them to do so, but I would almost guarantee that at least a minority of them will use the argument.

CNN - Atheism Revisited

Paula Zahn Now finally revisited the atheism discrimination issue. After replaying the first segment from the January 31 episode, a 3:30 minute interview (edited from 20 minutes) with Richard Dawkins. Professor Dawkins discusses the intolerance of atheists by theists and the reasons therein, and the overall worldview that atheism leads to.



Following this interview, a new panel, consisting of an atheist, a conservative minister, and a liberal theist.



Once again, the conservative theist gets it all wrong. We do not want to remove religion from your life. We just do not want you to impose your religion on ours. This panel wasn't much better than the first. The atheist panelist was calm, well-reasoned, and well-spoken, but the over-the-top bigotry by the conservative Christian overshadowed everything else in the discussion, and the letter read on the air was not representative of the letters I have seen reprinted on the web and was obviously chosen for it's mildly inflammatory wording, even if the intent was valid.

Bottom line: I'm still disappointed with CNN. They had the chance to make things right by brining in the individuals to have a real, honest debate, but once again, they blew it.

Darwin Day a Day Late - How "The Origin of Species" Changed the World

I decided not to mention Darwin Day, the celebration of Charles Darwin's birthday, at all, until it was gone. Charles Darwin was no doubt one of the single most influential scientific researchers of all time. However, I think celebrations of his birthday are detrimental in the long run, because it gives creationists a way to justify claims that non-theistic evolution supporters raise up and worship evolution, and by extension Darwin, as a god mechanism, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Darwin's theories, most of which have since been supplemented, improved upon, or replaced entirely, are one of the most outstanding examples available of the scientific method at work.

Even in Darwin's time, evolution was not a particularly provocative subject in the scientific community. Most biologists and naturalists accepted that it occurred, at least on some level. Science of the time could see how small changes in an offspring were transferred to the next generation, but they did not have an explanation for the mechanism, nor any consensus on how far these changes could deviate from the baseline a species.

When the Beagle's second voyage sailed, Darwin was still a young man, at 22 years old. Every chance he got to disembark, he did, and he took copious notes on the local flora and fauna. By the time the Beagle returned to port, he was already made famous by his detailed observations on the natural world.

After his return, he studied his notes, and, over time, became especially taken by the finches of the Galapagos Islands. These finches were all very similar, but the finches of each island had different beak structures, each suitable for eating the food found natively on its home island. Their otherwise extreme similarity led him to the inescapable conclusion that these bird all descended from a common ancestral variety of finch, and as they migrated to different islands, changes to the beak structures would increase or decrease the survivability of individual birds, leading them to having more or less offspring, and thereby passing, or not passing, their unique traits to their offspring, thereby reinforcing the ideal beak shape. This idea carried over to other traits in other species he encountered and he realized that this concept of natural selection, the selecting of features based on environmental and reproductive pressures, could explain the diversity of life on the planet Earth. By effecting enough change in an isolated group under unique selective pressures, that group would eventually become a separate species.

Finally, in 1859, over 20 years after his return from his voyage, Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, or more simply known as The Origin of Species. This book was the pivotal work in the establishment of the field of evolutionary biology, and is considered to be the unifying work in all of biology. It would be many years before a mechanism of inheritance (gene theory) would be proven, but Darwin laid the foundation, and provided a well evidenced theory for a mechanism of selection which still stands today. In the end, we shouldn't celebrate the man, we should celebrate his work, which stands as possibly the most important scientific study ever made.

Friday Fallacy Double Feature

I missed last week due to traveling, so I'm covering two related logical fallacies this week: confusing association with causation, and the post hoc fallacy.

Confusing association with causation occurs when there is a correlation between two unrelated, and that correlation is erroneously believed to be related. For example: as the number of pirates operating in the waters of earth's oceans has decreased, the global temperatures have increased, therefore, pirates prevent global warming. The correlation is true, the number of pirates has decreased as global temperatures have risen, however, the rise in global temperatures is not linked to the decline in piracy.

A more serious example is this: the more educated an individual, the less religious they are, on average. The more educated an individual, the healthier they are, on average. By combining these two studies, a correlation can be shown between high religiosity and reduced health. It would be a fallacy to say that high religiosity leads to reduced health. Even though there is a correlation, no causative effect between them has been shown in a controlled study.

Post hoc, egro propter hoc (Latin: after this, therefore because of this), more commonly referred to as the post hoc fallacy, occurs when X happens before Y, and Y is assumed to have happened because of X. For example, if a team breaks a winning streak the game after a player washes his lucky sock, the player will blame the loss on washing the sock, when the two were actually unrelated.

The Problem With American Media

They'd rather waste time talking about the death of a two-bit, gold digging skank than talk about real issues.

Paula Zahn Now never covered the atheism issue at all tonight. 55 minutes of the one hour show was about the death of Anna Nicole Smith, a topic that warranted five minutes, tops. Hopefully, they should have the atheism panel on tomorrow night's show, but they never mentioned anything about it.

Richard Dawkins on Upcoming CNN Appearance

I'll move on from this subject soon, I promise, but it's too important to just let go by.

In response to some criticisms about a Brit appearing in an interview about American prejudices against atheists, which, I'll admit, crossed my mind as well, Dawkins had this to say (from Pharyngula comments):

Yes, I independently had the same thought yesterday, about the need for American voices rather than my English one. I suggested some names, including Michael Newdow who was actually slandered by one of the morons on the previous program. Unfortunately, however, CNN were adamant that they wanted a one-on-one between me and Paula Zahn. So I'll just have to do the best I can, with apologies to those who could surely have done a better job. I think it is possible that CNN don't want to concentrate on American attitudes to atheists this time, so much as on atheism more generaly (I was told that Paula Zahn is reading The God Delusion).

Update: CNN has made a change in the format of the episode to air today. Again, from Dawkins:

I just learned that CNN's plan for this evening has changed. My 20 minute interview will be edited down to about 4 minutes, and it will be followed by a panel discussion involving Christopher Hitchens (representing atheists) and two religious spokesmen.

The inclusion of Hitchens on the panel is a bit worrisome, as he can be a bit abrasive. Hopefully everything will go well.

Debbie Schlussel Responds

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/02/when_atheists_a.html

Apparently, I'm a future Muslim who's out to bring America down. This whole piece reads like the ravings of a lunatic and doesn't even deserve a response, so I'm not giving one. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader.

Update: Apparently, CNN is now in damage control mode. Tonight (Thursday, February 8th), at 8PM EST, Paula Zahn Now will repeat the pre-taped segment from the January 31st episode, and then interview Richard Dawkins on the atheist point of view. I couldn't think of a better representative.

Update 2: I'm still not giving a response, but Austin Cline, of About.com has given an excellent one.

Update 3: Another worthy response, this one from PZ Myers, at Pharyngula.

Respect

I have a philosophy which should quickly become very apparent on this blog: Respect the believer, not the belief.

I will be respectful to anyone who is being likewise respectful, but I will absolutely not pull any punches on any belief that I think to be false, stupid, or dangerous. That goes doubly for any belief based entirely on faith, and yes, there is a big difference between belief and faith. If anyone proves themselves unworthy of respect, then they will not get it from me.

If you wish to debate any issue I present, do so respectfully and I will return the favor. I will respect you and I will respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe, but do not expect me to respect a damaging belief.

CNN - Unfair and Unbalanced - Part 2

Here are the video clips from the Paula Zahn Now episode. If you haven't read the first post I made on the subject yet, you may want to watch these videos first to get some context.

CNN Makes Fox News Look Like They Actually Are Fair and Balanced

Strap yourself in. This is going to be a long one.

I wasn't going to say anything about this. It's already been well covered at all the usual atheist blogs and news sites, so I was just going to let it go. Until I saw the video.

On the January 31, 2007 episode of Paula Zahn Now, on CNN, the final segment of the show was on the discrimination against atheists. The transcript is posted at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/31/pzn.01.html. It started out promising, with a pre-taped segment showing the results of an actual case of discrimination in a small Mississippi town that should have been enough to open anyone's eyes. Then, it took a turn.

After the commercial break, an open panel discussed the issue. This so called "open panel" was made up of three theists. No atheist anywhere in sight.

ZAHN: So do you think atheists should keep their religious beliefs secret? What's their beliefs period?

HUNTER: What does an atheist believe? Nothing. I think this is such a ridiculous story. Are we not going to take "In God We Trust" off of our dollars? Are we going to not say "one nation under God?" When does it end? We took prayer out of schools. What more do they want?

I believe in things. Everyone believes in things, I do not believe in the supernatural. How does that give anyone the right to infringe on my rights as an American? Remove "In God We Trust" from our money? Remove "one nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance? I say yes! "One nation under God" clearly has no historical basis, and "In God We Trust" is barely better.

When does it end? What do I want? Respect

ZAHN: Are any of you going to defend them here tonight?

SCHLUSSEL: No, I agree with her 100 percent. I think that the real discrimination is atheists against Americans who are religious. Listen, we are a Christian nation. I'm not a Christian. I'm Jewish, but I recognize we're a Christian country and freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. And the problem is that, you have these atheists selectively I believe attacking Christianity. You had a case in California where school children were forced to dress as Muslims and learn from the Koran. In Michigan they're saying high school (INAUDIBLE) in high school where they say Muslim prayers at the football games, public high school, (INAUDIBLE) in high school. You don't see atheists complaining about that. I really believe that they are the ones who are the intolerant ones against Christians.

It was only a matter of time before the Christian Nation myth surfaced, and it was sooner than I expected. I attack Christianity because it is Christianity that attacks me. It is Christians trying to impose their will on me, so it is Christians I fight.

I don't recall hearing about the case in California. Were they learning about it in a comparative religion context? I am all for that. I think comparative religion studies that cover all major religions, Christianity included, should be a required course in every public school in the nation. Forced to dress like Muslims? Something just doesn't sit right about that, especially considering that Muslim men don't dress any differently than anyone else. Muslim prayers at high school football games? I'm just as against that as I am Christian prayers at high school football games. Show me where any of this is happening, and I will be right beside you protesting.

HUNTER: They don't have a good - marketing. If they had hallmark cards, maybe they wouldn't feel so left out. We have Christmas cards. We have Kwanza cards now. Maybe they need to get some atheist cards and get that whole ball rolling so more people can get involved with what they're doing. I think they need to shut up and let people do what they do. No, I think they need to shut up about it.

I read this part three times and I still don't know what the hell she's talking about. Seriously. Can anyone explain this to me? Either I'm dense or she's just spewing hate for hate's sake.

SMITH: I don't think they need to shut up. The reason why I don't think they need to shut up is because there's a whole bunch of people in this world that we can look at and say they need to shut up and they certainly don't. You got everybody fighting for their own individual cause. This is their cause. We might not like it. I don't agree with it at all, but they do have a right.

I haven't put any of Mr. Smith's quotes in here yet because he wasn't making an asshat out of himself. There may not have been anyone to represent the atheist position, but he was respectful and well spoken the entire segment, so I did want to put at least one quote in
and give him my thanks and my respect.

HUNTER: I think they need to shut up about crying wolf all the time and saying that they're being imposed upon. I personally think that they should never have taken prayer out of schools. I would rather there be some morality in schools. But they did that because an atheist went to court and said their child -- don't pray (INAUDIBLE).

SCHLUSSEL: And what about this obnoxious Michael Newdow, who went all the way to the Supreme Court for his child, the child doesn't know what's going on, to try and get under God taken out of the pledge of allegiance. They are on the attack. It's obnoxious and they do need to shut up.

Here we go. The morality issue. Everyone knew it was coming. This issue has been covered in spades elsewhere and I will no doubt cover it in this blog in some detail at some point in the future. Suffice it to say that anyone who thinks the Bible provides good moral guidance in the modern world has either never read the Bible or has engaged in some substantial cherry picking.

ZAHN: Can you explain to me where you feel the assault? When 97 percent of the folks in this country claim to worship some kind of God, the 1 to 3 percent of this population that doesn't believe in God, who are they hurting?

HUNTER: Eight to 12 percent. (INAUDIBLE) They're not hurting anyone. I personally don't have a problem with an atheist. Believe or don't believe what you want. Don't impose upon my right to want to have prayer in schools, to want to say the pledge of allegiance, to want to honor my God. Don't infringe upon that right.

I will give Ms. Hunter credit on one point. She did correct the fallacious percentages that were being used by Paula Zahn. 1-3% is based on the narrowest of definitions of atheist. If you count all "non-believing Americans" the number takes a huge jump. The last number I saw was actually 9-15%, but I'll give her the 8-12%, and give her credit for the correction.

With that said, who does she think she is to impose prayer in school? That doesn't just affect atheists. It affects Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and anyone else of any other faith than Christianity. The same with the Pledge. I say the Pledge of Allegiance as well. I leave out "under God," but I am proud to pledge to the flag. Asking that there be no mention of a god in the pledge doesn't diminish her ability to honor her god. Who is she to demand that I honor her god? She is a hypocrite of the worst kind. "You have the right to do whatever you want as long as it's what I want you to do."

SMITH: When they want to take - when they want to take God out of the pledge of allegiance or whatever, this is what I'm saying. They're saying, OK, that's Christian. What if you're a Muslim? What if you're someone of a different belief?

SCHLUSSEL: This is a Christian country.

SMITH: I understand that, but what they're saying is how can -- if we're inclusionary, why can't we include all that and we're not. That's my point.

One again, I have to applaud Mr. Smith. He was the only voice of reason on the panel. Too bad he could barely get a word in edgewise.

SCHLUSSEL: (INAUDIBLE) Look where there are more atheists and where they've lost God, where the church is not that strong. Europe is becoming Islamist. It's fast falling and intolerance is increasing. That's the one reason our country has not become like Europe because we have strong Christians and because atheists are not strong. And I think that's a good thing.

So, becoming an atheist leads to Islam? That's news to me. Last I knew, we atheists were pretty evenly skeptical about all religions. It's like she's not even trying anymore.

I had given myself time to calm down before I wrote this post, but writing it has just gotten me worked up again. This is the most bigoted thing I've ever seen on television. If they were saying this about any other group besides atheists, they would have been fined, lost advertisers, and would have fired multiple people, but because it was about atheists, no one cares. If anyone needs an example of the discrimination against atheists, this is it.

JESUS LOVES YOU

At least, that's what the billboards tell me.

Some plain white billboards have popped up around the city with the large words "JESUS LOVES YOU" written on them. No logos, no website, no phone number, no church name. The first time I saw one, I chuckled out loud, but not for the reason you might think. I didn't laugh because I find the concept of a mortal/immortal man/god amusing, but because it instantly occurred to me how much money they were wasting, whoever they were.

Nearly everyone who sees those billboards will fit into one of two broad categories: Christian or non-Christian. If you're Christian, you already believe this. If you're non-Christian, you don't, and a billboard isn't going to make you suddenly believe otherwise. The only people they could possibly be targeting are the fence-sitters, and these billboards are just one more subtle delivery of the same message they are getting from every other angle in our society: you are evil and no one could possibly love you, but Jesus does and he's ready to forgive you for being an evil, immoral idiot. Though no one ever says it that way, that's the message that Christianity brings, and these billboards are just one more ineffective way for Christians to spread their message of fear and self-loathing.

Understatement of the Year

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/sealaunch/nss8/

"The Sea Launch Zenit 3SL vehicle, carrying the NSS 8 satellite, experienced an anomaly today during launch operations.” the official statement said.

Anomaly? You don't say...

Rational Response Squad on Nightline

I have lots to say about this, but I'm just going to put it out here for now. It is the most fair coverage I've seen of the Blasphemy Challenge, but it is by no means balanced, and is skewed quite noticeably against the RRS. They blatantly did not give the RRS the same opportunities to answer the challenges of the minister as they did the minister to answer them, so I will be making some notes and answering the objections myself in a later post.

Back from Anniston

If you have an opportunity to go to Anniston, AL, don't.